Jump to content

Talk:Ed Miliband/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ed Miliband/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sceptre (talk • contribs • count) 05:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey. First off, I should declare that I'm a paid-up member of the Liberal Democrats. However, Miliband as a person doesn't annoy me as much as the rest of the Labour Party would. Still, I take a policy of putting opinions to one side before I edit :). Along with this review, I'll make very minor grammatical edits. Sceptre (talk) 05:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Only minor problems: in the "Early life" section, rewrite the sentence about Ralph Miliband to look like "...was a Belgian-born Marxist thinker who fled with his parents to England during World War II" (this has the bonus of removing one of my pet peeves: citations in the middle of a sentence); in the "Cabinet" section, the anecdote about Postlethwaite could do with better comma placement; in the "Leadership election" section, "Trade Unions" should not be capitalised. If you want to eventually nominate it for FA, I would suggest that you print off the article, if you can, and go through each word. There are several "X, but Y" constructions, which are frowned upon by FA reviewers, but are not a failure condition for a GA.
    I did the suggested rewrite and the capitalization and moved the comma to a slightly better location.. Off2riorob (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    I suggest merging the "Early life" and "Education" sections; they have considerable overlap.
    I did a merge as per the suggestion. Off2riorob (talk) 22:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Refs #7, #21, #48, and #49 need filling out. That's the main issue. -  Done - filled out Off2riorob (talk) 01:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)) - Suggest also more memorable reference names, and more detail in other refs, but won't fail on that.
    Changed to "Pass". Sceptre (talk) 11:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Needs references for the last two sentences of the "Cabinet" section. They shouldn't be hard to find.
    Still needs a reference for him putting together Labour's 2010 manifesto. Sceptre (talk) 11:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  1. C. No original research:
  2. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    The "Early life" and "Education" sections could do with a little bit more detail, such as school years.
    I added a small addition that he twice lived in Boston for a while as a child and attended a school there. I will bear your comment in mind for possible future improvement. Off2riorob (talk) 22:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
    B. Focused:
    I'm a little unsure about whether his votes on Lords reform in 2007 are particularly relevant.
    On looking I agree and it seems cherry picked with no detail to explain why that single issue should be the one chosen - so ..removed. Off2riorob (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  3. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Almost neutrally dry; it contains little praise or criticism of him.
    " neutrally dry" - sounds almost encyclopedic. Off2riorob (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  4. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  5. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  6. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Only referencing improvements are needed for this to be a GA. I'll check back several times over the next four or five days to see if they've been resolved.
Passed. :) Sceptre (talk) 11:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Great. Many thanks for your reviewing and improvements. Off2riorob (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Miliband and the Scottish Labour election candidates

Maybe it is too trivial to include here, but I wondered whether people thought it was of interest to include information that Ed Milliband could not recall the names of all three candidates standing for leadership of the Scottish Labour election. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Source? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Scottish Labour Party leadership election, 2011 - I think its a case of Two Out of Three Ain't Bad - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-15104173 - he did say that there were three "excellent candidates standing for the post"... and imo no, its not encyclopedic or a notable event in his life story. Off2riorob (talk) 20:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


Thank you for that link - it points out that he could remember Tom Harris and Johann Lamont, but could not remember the name of Ken Macintosh (although it does say that he rang to apologise to Macintosh later on). ACEOREVIVED (talk) 09:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Infobox image

  • Image A: Ed Miliband on August 27, 2010 cropped.jpg
    Image A:
    Ed Miliband on August 27, 2010 cropped.jpg
  • (Proposed) Image B: Ed Miliband (2010).jpg
    (Proposed) Image B:
    Ed Miliband (2010).jpg

The question of which image to have in the infobox, out of the two above, was discussed last year where the general consensus seemed to be to keep Image A until something better came along. But it's been over a year now and I feel a replacement is needed and the discussion should be re-opened.

I believe Image B is aesthetically more pleasing because it's better lit (it better contrasts with the light background; not excessively red), and itswider and not as obviously cropped - Ed doesn't look like he's crammed into the picture. Additionally, I think Image B is a 'nicer' picture of Ed where he's caught in his officially capacity as a speaker (with added articulation with the hands) and leader. B may have the 'wide eyed' look, but it doesn't feature the smile which gives his teeth and his jaw a rather awkward look. In A he seems unaware of the photograph, as if it was taken by surprise. In B he is poised for the picture and staring clearly ahead which gives us a clearer profile of his whole face (no shadow over half his face).

In conclusion I believe Image B is most suitable for this article Peter (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

  • - Support A - portrait style and looking into the article as per MOS. The the 'wide eyed' surprised look just makes him look like a bog eyed alien. What we are more looking for at this time - both pictures are dated for a UK political leader is a new picture, one year more updated. Both pictures in this discussion have their issues - better than putting energy into this dated discussion is to find a high quality much more recent one. - note - I added pic c a crop of b - its better without the invisible ball holding hands - although the raised eyebrows and the surprised eyes still rule it out for me. The current pic, although not perfect has , normal eyebrows, pleasant smile and is a portrait style looking into the article as per MOS for biography infobox pictures. I was looking at this photostream. - Off2riorob (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Nice find! Are images on flickr fair use? Because a few of those could potentially be used in the infobox. Peter (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes some of those are - how you check is look to the right hand side and click on the link - Some rights reserved and you are led to a screen with the copyright status -like http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en most of the commons licenses are usable on commons - unless it says no derivatives or no non educational bla bla - you get the picture. We could definitely use updating to a 2011 picture.Off2riorob (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Personally i think B is the best. Edinburgh Wanderer 20:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Does this page meet WP:GA?

Given the number of changes that go on to this page, does it meet WP:GA? point #5 at this time ? Mtking (edits) 05:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

No. --John (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

removed addition- Milibands comment about Israel

In Miliband's first speech as Labour leader he said that Israel was the only obstacle to a "just and lasting peace" in the Middle East.

This comment seems a perfectly good addition. As Miliband is a Jew his comments about Israel seem to be quite important. He made it in his opening speech as Labour leader where you would expect him to lay out his positions. It was removed with the comment, "Not a 'self description of views' and sourced to a highly-questionable article" - that seems strange, Miliband said in his first speech as leader...bla bla, that seems to clearly be his - (actually quite well known) position and written in a Jewish publication, is the www.thejc.com not a wikipedia reliable source? Youreallycan (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The comment is sourced to a highly-partisan comment piece on the Jewish Chronicle website. It cannot possibly be characterised as a 'Self-description of views' as the section is headed. The JC piece provides no context whatsoever for the statement, and frankly, looks like a bit of selective quoting (or given the author, misquoting) to justify a hatchet-job. And no, if Miliband's comments about Israel are important, it is because he is leader of the Labour party, not because he is a Jew. I suggest that you start by finding a source that provides context for the statement, along with evidence from a reliable source that it was actually seen as significant, and then we can discuss where, if anywhere, it can be added to the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I can look for more citations to support. Do you agree that as a Jew his position on Israel is noteworthy? Youreallycan (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

In September 2011 in a speech to the Labour Friends of Israel, indicative that the Labour party under Miliband was moving away from the Blair-Brown position of support for Israel, Miliband said that it was right to support the Palestinian bid for statehood.

Do you have any objections to me adding this? Youreallycan (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes I do. The Jewish Chronicle is a partisan source, and has clearly cherry-picked Miliband's speeches to make a point. If we are to characterise his political views, we should do it from mainstream sources, not from those with a particular perspective. And no, I do not think that someone's ethnicity makes their views on Israel more or less important. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
We will have to disagree that his position on Israel is not of heightened interest due to his ethnicity. Mainstream sources, the Guardian? I will look for more. "The latest symbolic move has been to back Palestinian statehood in advance of a vote at the UN. This is a peculiar decision that makes no real sense before knowing what the Palestinians are putting on the table, except to send a strong message to the party faithful that Ed Miliband is shifting policy on the Middle East. This line on Israel/Palestine is one that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown would never have countenanced and that is the whole point." - www.spectator.co.uk/martinbright/7261383/what-ed-miliband-should-say-at-labour-conference-but-wont.thtml - Youreallycan (talk) 15:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
If the Labour Party (and not just Miliband) is shifting it's position over the Middle East, that may well be relevant to an article about them. But again, I see no reason why his ethnicity makes this any more important - and no reason to see it as indicating anything particularly significant about Miliband's own views. To suggest that his background should hold sway over his political position as leader of the Labour Party is frankly offensive. He is a British politician, not an Israeli one, and deserves to be treated as such. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
What are you now proposing to add? I'm not sure that either source tells us anything much about a change in policy under Miliband - support for the two-state solution was policy previous to Miliband becoming party leader, from what I recall. Actually, I think it would be better to wait for input from others over this - there is no urgency, as far as I can see. AndyTheGrump (talk)
You do realize who this editor is, right? Given the history, I think what we have here is some trolling. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Hum. No I didn't. Strange... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I didn't realize/recognize it either. Rob, do you intend to continue this behavior? Jayjg (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) The issue here isn't so much The Jewish Chronicle, which meets all the requirements of WP:RS, and is fine as a source. Rather, the issue here is WP:UNDUE. Politicians say all sorts of things, every day, many of which are published. What makes these particular comments notable or noteworthy? The fact that he is a Jew and made a comment or two about Israel isn't enough to qualify it for inclusion. To be included, a statement about his political views must have had significant coverage, in multiple sources. Also, cobbling together various comments he's made over the years, and describing them as "a long term position", is a classic example of WP:SYNTH. To begin with, Miliband is not the Labour Party, but rather its leader and main spokesman; if he makes statements on behalf of the Party, then it is a fact about the Party, not about Miliband. Moreover, if the Labour Party's position on something has changed, then no doubt multiple reliable sources will explicitly state it: "The Labour Party has changed its position on X, now stating...". Jayjg (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Disputed recent addition

  • - Miliband describes himself as a secular Jew

This statement, which has recently been added to the article appears to be original research and unsupported in the citations provided. The expression Secular Jew or the word secular is never mentioned in the two supporting externals. Miliband has never described himself as a secular Jew. "I see myself as a secular Jew" ... It was added a couple of days ago in this edit Youreallycan (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC) - previousely

As the diff shows, the wording of the sentence was changed from "Though not religious Miliband is Jewish." I noticed the change and decided it wasn't a big deal either way as a definition of secular is "not religious". I have no problem with the previous wording, either, although I'd add a comma before Miliband.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
The phrase "secular Jew" is just plain odd and poor style. People can believe in secularism, but they can't really be "secular". They can be atheist or non-religious, as in the previous version. Since the new version is not sources, the previous version should be restored. --FormerIP (talk) 02:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Did Ed really go to the LSE?

It isn't mentioned in the Hasan/Macintyre book, and the citation does not contain any reference to LSE. Should it be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceLion (talk • contribs) 19:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

There are quite a few mentions of him attending the LSE if you google it - for example Tony Parsons in the Mirror mentions it - Anyone with detail on this please comment - I note his Father went there - Ralph_Miliband - Youreallycan 19:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Why was the category removed?

Some one removed him from the category "Jewish atheists" which exists in Wikipedia. Well, if any one wants the source for this, he himself described himself in this way on P.M. on Radio Four on June 7 2012. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

What you need to do is to add material to the body of the article, reliably sourced, that says he has described himself as an atheist. Assuming you do that correctly, you can add the cat.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi - Is the interview available for listening anywhere ? - I did a search any couldn't find it - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qskw - or a transcript? Youreallycan 19:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 June 2012

When someone gets the chance, under "Background and early life" please can you replace the first sentence of the second paragraph with the following, to indicate that Ed Miliband also attended Featherbank Primary School in Leeds (there's a reference at http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/at-a-glance/main-section/once-a-featherbanker-ed-miliband-returns-to-the-horsforth-school-that-fostered-his-love-of-leeds-united-1-3874753):

"Miliband was educated at Primrose Hill Primary School, Camden, Featherbank Primary School, Leeds, and then Haverstock Comprehensive School in Chalk Farm, North London."

Thank you! 86.128.238.116 (talk) 01:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I will - add this now for you - ................. Done - Youreallycan 18:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Recent uncited edit described him as as a Non observant Jew

User:Mike5995 who seems ot have a pretty singular contributory focus on this type of addition - has made this alteration without discussion and without additional citations - this is a WP:GA and such additions degrade tthe article - i am not editing article space but if there is anyone doing so - please assess this addition and revert as required - Youreallycan 22:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

New image

A few months ago (maybe longer, I forget) there was a discusison about which infobox image to use; which one made him look less awkward. Now there might be a 'solution'.

A whole new batch of images have recently been uploaded to the Commons of ministers and shadow ministers (a few appear to have been deleted, but others have survived.... The license appears fine on this one). This image seems a good one, and I think that it should be placed in the infobox. I'd just want to get a little bit of agreement first. -- Peter Talk page 22:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

When was the picture taken - Is is more recent than the current picture? I see you also recently removed a picture with the edit summary - remove picture too many pictures for a small article - - please don't do that - this is a WP:GA and many user have worked together for that status - your unilaterally descending there are toooo many pictures and just removing the ones you do not like without discussion is not good - There are also dubious copyright claims imo - the unloader User:Slytherining Around32 was recently banned for its copyright violating uploads / sockpuppet violating contributions Youreallycan 23:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The license itself seems clear. It is also clear that it isn't good enough for Commons. Whether it is good enough for WP is beyond my expertise, but it very much sounds as though it isn't. The image is one of a group released by FOI request. Here are the terms under which it was released:

All these images are Crown Copyright and can be released under the Open Government Licence. You may re-use the Crown copyright protected material free of charge in any format for non-commercial research, private study or internal circulation within your organisation. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and you must give the title of the source document/publication.

Here is the letter and the rest of the FOI info. Perhaps just as importantly, the current image is less "awkward" than the one proposed. -Rrius (talk) 23:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for highlighting the problem with the license. This image probably isn't a good choice then. -- Peter Talk page 00:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
This image is fine (as are similar ones), per [1] and according to User:Jdforrester, who used to work on the Open Government License. Some Commons admins don't get this, but they're wrong. —innotata 01:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

LSE

Please change "London School of Economics" to it's correct name of "London School of Economics and Political Science"

The informal name of the college is both misleading and misrepresentative of it's true function.

I say no. "London School of Economics" is the name it is best known by, and adding "and Political Science" adds nothing to the article. If anything, people might wonder if he went to some other school with a name similar to the well-known institution. Whether the short form is "misleading and misrepresentative of its true function" is a debatable question, but fortunately not one we have to worry about here. -Rrius (talk) 01:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Cats again - English?

In this diff on 1 October the cats were changed from British person of... to English person of.... No citations or self declarations were provided to assert the change - he would be more usually and correctly with his parents history imo be described as British, thoughts/comments? I also notice that English person of Belgian descent was added at the same time and yet only Milibands father was born in Belgian with no Belgian descendants at all - his father after birth went to England and claimed British nationality - I don't see that categorizing Ed as a person of Belgian descent is at all correct? The same user changed his brothers cats as well diff - so the discussion applies to David as well.Youreallycan 04:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

How can a person born in England, brought up in England, who lives in England, and who has an English accent not be English? His parents weren't. He is. Is there any evidence that he doesn't identify as English? English in this instance isn't an ethnicity, but an identity. Most English people are of mixed ethnicity, as most have at least some Scottish, Irish or Welsh descent, if not overseas descent. That doesn't mean they aren't English. As for "descent" categories, these also do not denote ethnicity. His father was born in Belgium. Ergo he was Belgian and David and Ed are of Belgian descent. Their "ethnicity" is irrelevant. If we are to change this then we need to change it across the board, not only on this one article, as this is the norm for such categories. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

One Nation Labour

Anyone up for working on a One Nation Labour article? I've created a redirect to this page presently, but there seems plenty of online material we could use for an article. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

A circular redirect - yawn - - Youreallycan 21:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

English?

Ed Miliband is English?

Are there sources for this ? The only way he is English is if he strongly self declares as an English person? Youreallycan 21:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

What's the context for this question. Does the Article say he's English? Ah, I see the category edits Alexbrn (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Why is it that some editors are having a hard time understanding WP:CONSENSUS?

Even a long-standing one. Want to change the article? Fine, try it. Someone disagrees? They revert. Then: discuss and gain consensus. Why is that hard? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

In reference to this edit, his religion can't be "none" if he is Jewish, and "atheism" is not a religion. Bus stop (talk) 07:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Then you are on the horns of a dilemma. He has said he is an atheist and he has acknowledged that he is culturally a Jew. So you can't list Jewish as 'religion' unless you change the definition of religion and/or (as per previous requests) show a reliable third party reference to support the proposition that the Judaism as a religion is in that unique way different from all other religions. ----Snowded TALK 08:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. If the complaint above is about the infobox, I don't particularly care whether it is blank or says "None (atheist)". But the text in the body of the article was not strong enough. One can say, "I believe in God, but I am not religious", which makes saying he is "Jewish, but not religious" too vague. -08:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
It's too vague only if one begins with an excessively narrow interpretation of "Jewish" in which being Jewish means believing in God. As for the infobox -- again we've got people restoring something that was reverted out after the first time it was added. It should not be added until there is consensus to add it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
It's not about starting with a narrow interpretation of the word. You have to deal with what words mean and have respect for the fact that the reader does not know how you are using a word capable of multiple meanings unless you are careful to signal what you mean. Since "Jewish" can mean being a member of a particular religion, culture or ethnicity, the vagueness is inherent in the word itself. The phrase "but not religious" is not enough to dispel it as it can be used to refer to people who are members of a religion but are not devout. It is therefore necessary to do better. -Rrius (talk) 10:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
When our text says "but not religious", I think we don't have to worry that someone will think that this person is a member of a religion. I'm happy to consider alternative formulations; what I really objected to, though, was the change from "is Jewish" to "was raised in a Jewish household". Miliband has said quite directly "I am Jewish". There were long discussions over many months about how to treat this issue; when someone finally produced a source containing his direct assertion, it helped settle the debate. Of course, consensus can change, but until it does this passage should stay as it is. My view is that the current version is accurate, clear, and well rooted in Miliband's own words as evident in sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
And I disagree with your first sentence. I am also happy to have a different formulation. Something along the lines of "is a secular Jew" or "identifies himself culturally as a Jew, but does not believe in God" would work. -Rrius (talk) 10:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Miliband has stated that he is a secular/cultural Jew, but has never stated that he is Jewish in terms of religion. The religious statement he has made publicly, as has been cited, is 'I don't believe in god'. Tippx (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Tippx—do you mean that Miliband is not religious? The article already says that he is not religious. The article reads: "Miliband is Jewish, though not religious." My question is why would we be adding to the Infobox that his "Religion" is "none (atheist)"? That field in the Infobox is for "Religion". Is "atheism" his "religion"? I have not seen any source saying that Miliband's religion is atheism. Why not just add Miliband's outlook on the existence of God to the body of the article? Miliband's outlook on the existence or nonexistence of God has little to do with Judaism. Atheism and Judaism are not incompatible, and many Jews are atheists. Bus stop (talk) 02:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Youngest "since the war"?

What a very strange thing to say, given that Miliband seems to be fairly clearly the youngest Labour Party leader ever. And indeed his closest competitors - Kinnock and Blair - were both leaders much more recently than World War II. The leaders of the Labour Party between 1922 and World War II have been: 1) Ramsay MacDonald, 56 in 1922; 2) Arthur Henderson, 67 in 1931; 3) George Lansbury, 73 in 1932; and 4) Clement Attlee, 52 in 1935. Even if you include the party chairmen before 1922, you don't get anyone: 1) Keir Hardie, 50 in 1906; 2) Arthur Henderson, 45 in 1908; 3) George Barnes, 51 in 1910; 4) Ramsay MacDonald, 45 in 1911; 5) William Adamson, 54 in 1917; 6) J. R. Clynes, 52 in 1921. So why on earth would anybody say "youngest since the war" when they could say "youngest ever." I understand that that's what the source says, but isn't this more or less simple arithmetic? john k (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Then why not just change it? -Rrius (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, there's a source for it that says "youngest since the war." Should I remove the citation and replace it with an unsourced statement? I figured I would throw it out there before doing it. john k (talk) 03:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
My mistake. I thought you already had. I don't see an OR problem, so by all means go for it as far as I'm concerned. -Rrius (talk) 03:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Ameripedia

Why must everything in Wikipedia be about glorifying America?

The Yanks might believe their own propaganda, but do the rest of us really have to put up with it?

An example, Ed Miliband is currently the Leader of the Opposition in the United Kingdom, his entry reads;

Due to his father's later employment as a roving teacher, Miliband spent two spells living in Boston, Massachusetts, one year when he was seven and one junior high school term when he was twelve.[10] Miliband remembered his time in the US as one of his happiest, during which he became a fan of American culture, watching Dallas and following the Boston Red Sox and New England Patriots.[2]

Seriously?

82.15.137.88 (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

That is sourced to two British sources.[2][3] Bus stop (talk) 15:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

What do the number of sources have to do with it? Is everything ever said by Miliband going to be included just because it was recorded and can be referenced. The block marked text is entirely superfluous and irrelevant to who and what he is. 82.15.138.94 (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

As the guy lived in the US then it is acceptable to include his recollections. Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm, maybe this could perhaps justifiably be called 'trivia'. On the other hand, Miliband describes himself as a Boston Red Sox "fanatic", and the section is about his personal life. [4] I'm inclined to suggest it should stay, on the same grounds that the fact that Martin McGuinness's bio tells us that he is an (unlikely) cricket fan [5] should - that it adds a little personality to an otherwise dry political biography. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I quite agree with 82.15.137.88. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.75.7.185 (talk) 13:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Jewish-Athiest

Once again I've reverted the addition of Jewish-Athiest to the religion title in the infobox. Jewish-Atheism is not a religion. Come to think of it, Atheism isn't even a religion. What we need to do here is stick with the consensus. This is Paul (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Religion inconsistency

The lead of the article prominently describes Miliband as being Jewish (according to Oxford, Jewish means 'connected with Jews or Judaism; believing in and practising Judaism'). The infobox describes Miliband as having no religion. This should be cleared up: it is an important matter with two very different assertions. 159.92.1.1 (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Miliband is 'connected with Jews' - he is ethnically Jewish. As an atheist, he clearly isn't a follower of Judaism. There is nothing 'inconsistent' in this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
159.92, what you have at Wikipedia is a certain group of editors who know very little about modern Jewishness and who therefore can do no other than imagine it in terms familiar to them from their passing acquaintance with other religions (and yet imagine that their contributions to articles in this connection is irreplaceable). So, the notion of Jewish atheism is incomprehensible to them (ahem), and then Jewishness gets reduced to ethnicity. Since the motto of Wikipedia is "any teenager can edit", it's not likely that this situation can be fixed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Given that our article on Jewish atheism describes it as "atheism as practiced by people who are ethnically, and to some extent culturally, Jewish", what exactly is wrong with my statement that Miliband is ethnically Jewish, and an atheist? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Nothing, except that in general that sort of formulation is incomplete as a portrayal of being Jewish. Since you didn't mention the "theology" section, perhaps you didn't read it, or understand it? This is where you're missing something that would help you with the religion angle here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I can understand the section well enough. Can you explain how it is relevant to this discussion? Has Miliband expressed a position on the subject? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh, let me help you with that. You wrote above that Miliband is an atheist and therefore "clearly isn't a follower of Judaism". If you have now read the Jewish atheism article including the theology section and still don't see how your earlier statement is generally wrong, then I can't help you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I should probably have written 'Miliband has not stated that he is a follower of Judaism as a religion - he has described himself as an atheist'. That some people hold that Jewish theology is compatible with atheism does not mean that Miliband agrees with this position. Accordingly we can only describe him as he himself does - as an atheist. That some other people consider atheism compatible with Judaism is a statement about them, not him. The infobox is in accord with the known facts, and quite correctly assumes nothing more. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
He has said he's Jewish, and he has said he's an atheist. Since my brain hasn't become addled by excessive Wikipedia editing, that makes him a Jewish atheist. I know it's not going to fly (don't bother with the abbreviations) -- but it would be ever so delightful if discussions of the matter didn't have to be burdened by ill-informed general notions such as the one you now acknowledge is incorrect. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Nomoskedasticity, can you clarify whether by 'Jewish atheist' you mean someone who supports the theological position laid out in our article on 'Jewish atheism', or whether you merely mean someone who is Jewish, and an atheist, without necessarily holding to that particular theological position? If you mean the former, you will need to provide evidence that Miliband personally holds such a position - and if it is the latter, the statement that Miliband is an atheist is clearly all that can possibly be legitimately said in the infobox, and the 'Jewish atheism' article is an irrelevance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
All I'm after here -- something I've accomplished -- is to ensure that you can no longer reasonably offer bogus general arguments when this issue arises (whether here or on another article). I know this is uncomfortable for you, thus you're keen to turn the discussion towards "relevance". That's okay; I'm satisfied in having helped you learn something about Jewishness. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I suggest one of you begin an RfC to generate further comments from the community about this matter. I do not think you will resolve it by yourselves. 159.92.1.1 (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
It looks as if this is actually quite a complicated matter. What you seem to be saying is that Miliband is ethnically Jewish but is not someone 'believing in and practising Judaism'. For the time being, I shall clarify the lead by including the ethnic part to make it clear that Miliband is ethnically Jewish but not a follower of Judaism, something that is currently ambiguous. The infobox should not need clarification because it is specific to religion. 159.92.1.1 (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
If you haven't yet done so, please read the archives for this talk page - much of this has been discussed before, and there is little merit in going over it all again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Editor removes negative commentary

With this edit [6], I inserted some details of a recent blunder made by Mr Miliband that has been all over the news. It involved his final party conference speech before the general election, which is hugely important for Mr Miliband's party. For some reason, AndyTheGrump has removed this information, saying it is not news and does not form a neutral point of view. His rationale for this is not entirely clear. Here is a selection of articles covering this story by well-established, neutral sources:

Do other editors agree that this warrants a sentence in the article, or should it be removed simply because it is critical of Mr Miliband, which is what AndyTheGrump appears to be suggesting? 86.158.181.38 (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

My original edit included the term 'mocked', which has been used in other reports [32], [33], BBC News Channel report (no link). I have changed to this to 'criticised', which should be agreed by all here. 86.158.181.38 (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I had already made my objections entirely clear, both in edit summaries and in a note on your talk page. Your edit asserted that Miliband had been "mocked" for omitting part of his speech - an assertion backed up by none of the sources you cited. It seems self-evident both from the edit and from your post above that you are intent on portraying this incident in as negative manner as possible. That is unacceptable. If this incident is to be covered at all, it will of course first have to be demonstrated that it is of lasting significance (this is an encyclopaedia not a newspaper and we do not cover every passing slip by every politician), and any content must be appropriately worded, and accurately reflect the balance of coverage in appropriate sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I described three sources above that have used the term 'mocked', even though my three original references did not use that term. Regardless, now that 'criticised' is used, which all the sources agree upon, there should not be much problem. The vast majority of sources portray the blunder negatively: I am only interested in portraying the situation neutrally, in the same way reliable sources do. It was strange not to see the event described in the article earlier. The final conference speech before an election is a very important event and is by no means a 'passing slip': this is supported by the coverage it has gained. 86.158.181.38 (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Unless it can be demonstrated that this incident is of lasting significance, it does not belong in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Can criticisms of Miliband for forgetting to address the economy and immigration in his final party conference speech be included in the article?

In his final Labour Party conference speech prior to the next UK general election, Miliband forgot to address both the economy and immigration. Here is a non-exhaustive selection of articles that mention this in some way:

Should this be described in the section 'Leader of the Opposition' and, if so, how should it be worded? 86.154.155.169 (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Support inclusion. This being Miliband's final party conference speech prior to his first general election makes it, perhaps, the most important one of his life so far. It became even more notable when he did not discuss the economy (the UK's budget deficit) and immigration, two important issues for British voters. This is reflected by the level of coverage given by neutral sources (see above for just a selection of these) and readers will accordingly expect to see some mention of it on Miliband's Wikipedia article.

It seems strange that some are claiming this to be 'not news', despite the following far more minor points being in the same section, to give just a few:

  • Called for Rebekah Brooks to resign.
  • Called for the Press Complaints Commission to be abolished.
  • Criticised Stephen Hester's 2012 bonus.
  • Addressed the Durham Miners' Gala.
  • At the 2013 Labour Party Conference, announced intentions to freeze energy and fuel prices for twenty months.

Some have claimed that including criticism of Miliband is POV. This is wholly incorrect when it is simply repeating what has been described neutrally by a majority of third-party, accepted sources. 86.154.155.169 (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. Please don't waste our time with trivia. There is no evidence whatsoever that this incident is going to play any significant part in the long-term career of Miliband, and we don't fill articles with every minor slip by politicians. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The five points given above are far more trivial than what has been suggested here and have played absolutely no part in the long-term career of Miliband. This is much more significant than a minor slip, as the coverage identifies. 86.154.155.169 (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
If you think existing material is trivial, that is a reason to remove it, not add more. And you have provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this incident is of long-term significance. Merely asserting that it is proves nothing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • comment- To answer your question, Yes and No. Yes criticisms of Miliband for forgetting to address the economy and immigration in his final party conference speech be included in the article but that is if it can be demonstrated that this incident is of lasting significance. If not then no. You haven't demonstrated that this will be of any lasting significance.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • 'Comment. Not on the lede, and yes on the article if the incident is well documented and significant. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Demonstrations that the incident is of lasting significance. Even now, there is evidence that the omission went beyond a mere slip and has been taken far more seriously by the electorate, the media and the Labour party. It was mentioned prominently today, for instance:

  • Miliband's omission was brought up by George Osborne in the Consevative party conference. The BBC writes [59] (at 12:15), 'Mr Osborne mocks Labour leader Ed Miliband's speech, which he says "was so forgettable, he forgot it himself" - prompting laughter. Forgetting to mention the deficit was not "some hapless mistake" but "disqualification for the high office he seeks", he asserts.' The 'disqualification...' phrase indicates the importance of Miliband's omission and the significance it has for the upcoming election.

To test the significance of what happened, I have read through the selection of articles from The Telegraph that are given above. Here are some quotations that reinforce the claims of real importance here:

  • As written here [60], 'Political opponents have suggested he forgot to mention the issues because they are not priorities for him.'. Later it goes on to mention that Miliband's party 'is battling to persuade voters it can be trusted to run the economy', the omission being closely related to this so-called battle, which will continue for many months to come.
  • An article here [61] writes 'That such vital topics could slip his mind offers the clearest possible indication of how little his party has to say on either issue.': we can all appreciate the notability of the phrase 'clearest possible indication', as if it is truly important.
  • A further article [62] explains that Miliband's 'leadership is being openly questioned by his party after labour MPs said his conference speech which "lacked ambition" and told swathes of the electorate to "go take a jump"'. It later goes on to describe how 'Bookmakers yesterday slashed the odds on Andy Burnham, the shadow health secretary, becoming labour leader after he upstaged Mr Miliband.' Even further, it mentions that 'John Cridland, head of the Confederation of British Industry, told Radio 4's Today Programme: "I think what was missing in the speech will worry business."'. Here we have a potentially fragile leadership and lasting worries for businesses significantly encouraged by Miliband's speech.
  • An apt summary of the consequences of the omission is provided here [63], with the sentence 'The fact that Ed Miliband forgot to talk about the deficit in his leader's speech was symptomatic of the cavalier way in which the Labour leader is treating macroeconomic policy.'

Even just these four short points emphasise that this is more than just unimportant trivia, as a user has suggested above. Questions about Miliband's leadership qualities, worries for British businesses and the Labour party 'battling' to reassure voters about the economic plans about which it has 'little to say' are of long-lasting significance and readers expect and deserve to find this information on the page. 86.154.155.169 (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC) 86.154.155.169 (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't show any significance that is long term or lasting. This is current. This just happened. Wikipedia is not news.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The guy gave a speech without notes, and forgot a couple of topics, which was ironically not picked up until he then released his script, but I'd question the encyclopedic significance of what amounted to be a gaffe at this staeg. If it turned out to be his Sheffield Rally moment then it would become notable, but I have to say the opposition were bound to criticise the speech whatever he did. It's what happens at Party Conferences. Last year's "Britain can do better than this" attracted scorn from Cameron and the Tories in the following weeks. So, let's wait till after the election, digest the results and read what the commentators have to say. If Labour wins this episode may never be mentioned again, but if they lose and the speech is seen as a contributing factor, then we can look at adding it. This is Paul (talk) 10:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Judaism RFC

The consensus of the discussion is option 3 - remove from lead. The compelling argument was that inclusion in the lead gave undue weight to something that was not credibly claimed to be a defining characteristic of the article subject. Opposing views presented the case that the information was relevant and well-sourced, but these points are addressed by its presence in the article body. Euryalus (talk) 11:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The lead describes Edward Miliband as the first 'Jewish leader' of the Labour party. Miliband is ethnically Jewish, but not Jewish in the religious sense of the word; the infobox describes him as an atheist. Should this section of the lead be clarified to say Miliband is an ethnic Jew, rather than a religious Jew, so as not to suggest incorrectly that Miliband follows Judaism? Option 1: Keep as it is. Option 2: Specify that Miliband is ethnically Jewish, not religiously Jewish. Option 3: Remove from the lead altogether. 159.92.1.1 (talk) 03:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Option 2 or 3 If the phrase is kept, it would be helpful to include this extra word so that readers are not prone to misunderstanding Miliband's religious beliefs. I am indifferent as to whether the phrase is placed in the lead or not. 159.92.1.1 (talk) 03:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose as unnecessary - and frankly, I see little reason why we need to say that Miliband is the 'first Jewish leader of the Labour party' either. For various reasons, Wikipedia contributors seem to be obsessed with labelling Miliband as 'Jewish', in one way or another, but to the British public in general this is an issue of little consequence - they seem not to care. Accordingly, neither should we. His background is amply described in the 'Early life and education' and 'Personal life' sections and his position on religion is amply explained in the latter, and that is quite sufficient. Further emphasis on his ethnicity or (lack of) beliefs is entirely undue, per the balance of sources concerning him. He is a politician, and accordingly what is of significance is his politics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

That is a very good point: I have updated the RFC to include this option specifically. Please amend your vote accordingly. 159.92.1.1 (talk) 06:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support option 3. It's simply not relevant, helpful or necessary to include any such reference, and both the current and proposed alternative wordings give it unnecessary weight and are likely to confuse some readers - something we should not do. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support option 3: relatively little has been noted in the media about his Jewish "ethnicity". It's of virtually no importance that he will become the first ethnically Jewish prime minister (and anyway, he won't be the first). I agree with the points that have already been made. His political views are more noteworthy than his background - he has said he isn't religious, and no sources suggest that religious beliefs have influenced his politics. -- Hazhk Talk to me 12:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I realise that the actual sentence refers to him as the "first Jewish leader of the Labour Party". Still, I don't think it is a fact that needs to be in the lead. HazhkTalk 20:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support option 1 This is a useful and succinct biographical appendage that helps to inform the reader. DocumentError (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support option 3: I agree with the comments made by User:Hazhk in this instance. I think more time could be spent working on what he is notable for rather than spending time on what is essentially a trivial issue. In leaving it omitted from the lead the real work on the article can begin. I hope my comment helps. Thank you. PNGWantok (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support option 3 for the many reasons stated ----Snowded TALK 04:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Option 3 for the lede. It may be worth including in another section that he's been reported as the first Jewish Labour leader and has claimed he wants to be the first jJewish prime minister but I think it should be after discussion of his heritage so no clarification is needed. SPACKlick (talk) 11:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
There is no possibility of Miliband becoming 'the first [ethnically] Jewish Prime Minister' - he's 140 years too late for that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
After Disraeli converted to Anglicanism at the age of 12, he was no longer Jewish in a religious sense. Unless there is evidence that he maintained a Jewish identity in some other respect, then he wasn't ethnically Jewish either; as a convert to Christianity, he would not have been welcomed as a Jew in Jewish communities. Ethnicity is not merely a matter of family background; it can change and fade. It's by no means obvious that Miliband would be the second Jewish prime minister. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Either way, it doesn't change the fact he's stated he wants to be. SPACKlick (talk) 13:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Option 1 Clearly, this is a contentious issue, and this may be difficult for followers of other religions, or atheists not of a Jewish background to understand. Most importantly, Miliband has self-identified as Jewish several times. Secondly, there is widespread acceptance among Jews of Jewish atheists as Jews without qualification. I'm not going to make a big deal about it, and if consensus goes the other way, fine. But I see Miliband as just as Jewish as I am, and apparently, so does he. So the article should reflect that. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
    But being Jewish is just not a big deal (of course I don't mean personally, but rather publically) - Milliband doesn't make a big deal of it, the media do not make a big deal of it, most voters either won't have noticed or just don't care. It's not the sort of notable fact that belongs in the lead. It's not a very notable fact at all. DuncanHill (talk) 11:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
    What is or is not "a big deal" is subjective, and there is nothing that says everything mentioned in the lead must be "a big deal". The lead summarizes the body. I consider it a standard encyclopedic fact for a biography, if properly referenced. It is Miliband himself who needs to meet the threshold of notability, not each individual assertion about him. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
    But by that argument we could put everything in the lead. There is really nothing terribly notable at all about a British politician being ethnically Jewish - certainly nothing that would make it a "standard encyclopaedic fact". It's the sort of thing that can happily be mentioned in the text, but the lead should really be a short summary of why we have an article about him at all. MP, PC, Cabinet minister, Leader of the Opposition - that's the sort of thing a lead is for. DuncanHill (talk) 14:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
    I can't help thinking that there is an Atlantic-wide divide over this. In the US, there is massive interest in whether someone is Jewish, atheist, white, black, etc. etc. In the UK none of that matters as much. It just doesn't. Should we adopt an "international" (i.e. US-centred) approach on this, or should we adopt the approach prevalent in the person's country. I think it should be the latter. It's not a big deal. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:WEIGHT, we should do as the relevant sources do - which is to attach little significance to it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Option 1 It's true as he does identify as Jewish. Clarification and greater explanation as to his Judaism and Jewish identity is already included in the article. The description is fine as is. --Precision123 (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Option 2 or 3 - (summoned by bot) Having participated in a number of these race/ethnicity/sexual orientation debates, I've settled on the view that "self-identification" is the one of the key components to these kinds of questions. I can find at least one reference where Miliband calls himself a "Jewish atheist". We should either 1) call Miliband a "Jewish atheist" reflecting his own self identification, or 2) specify that Miliband is ethnically Jewish, not religiously Jewish (which seems like basically the same thing as "Jewish atheist", or 3) just not talk about it in the lead and elaborate on it later in the article. NickCT (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Option 3 (from RFC board) I like 2 or 3. 1 is just including unnecessary, if inaccurate, information. Ethnically and religiously Jewish are qualitatively different aspects or attributes. 2 is tempting because of what someone mentioned above, that his ethnicity is relevant to the person and is discussed later. 3 isn't terrible, and is far superior to 1. I guess it depends if it actually is important to state he is the first ethnically jewish person in that role. I don't see why that is particularly important, but if people think its notable enough for wikipedia, then 2 fits. If I was writing the article personally I would just leave it out. Prasangika37 (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Option 3 Secular, ethnic Jews, have no such identification in info boxes. For instance, Noam Chomsky was raised in a religious household, even went with his wife to an Israeli Kibbutz in his mid-30s and considered emigrating to Israel, but does not hold any professed religious beliefs. In fact, he was appalled by the anti-Arab sentiments he found there. Activist (talk) 19:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I would look for reliable sources that identify him as either Secular Jewish or Jewish Atheist. I would include it as that then. Otherwise I would remove it.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lord Mandelson and Chuka Ummuna plotting against Ed Miliband

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/532738/Labour-Movement-Dying-Plot-Oust-Ed-Miliband-MP

"One source close to a senior Shadow Cabinet member said supporters of Shadow Business Secretary Chuka Umunna were trying to stir up a leadership plot involving the pair to distract from his own ambitions.

The source claimed Mr Umunna is expected to receive a "large donation from a friend of Lord Mandelson's" in the next few weeks to help fund a leadership battle war chest."

Where should we place these quotes in the main article? Do we need to find more sources first? Advice? My previous talk post was deleted. It's still visible if you click 'view history'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nusgnitteseht (talk • contribs) 14:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, your previous edit was pretty unconstructive, so that's why it was removed. As regards the information you want to add, per WP:BLP, we would need a non-tabloid source for it to be added. The Express seems to aim itself at the same readership as the Mail, so we can't use it here. This is Paul (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Should Miliband's notable father be mentioned in the lead, as his notable brother is?

Consensus indicates that the community is opposed to this change. WaggersTALK 15:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The lead of David Miliband makes mention of both his notable brother and notable father, but the lead of Ed Miliband omits any mention of the father, Ralph Miliband. Should the sentence 'He is the younger son of the late Marxist theorist Ralph Miliband.' be reinstated to the lead of the article, as it is at David Miliband?

Support inclusion. Ralph Miliband is an important figure, both independently and in relation to Ed Miliband. It is standard to include notable close relations in the lead of articles, as many other articles, including David Miliband, attest. Making a point of including a note of David Miliband but not Ralph Miliband in this article seems rather unusual, almost as if editors are attempting to hide something from readers. 86.154.155.169 (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. Yes that's right - we are all involved in a grand conspiracy to hide the Marxist plot to take over the entire universe by not mentioning who politicians parents are in article ledes, while clearly including the information in the body of the article. Now, in the interests of transparency, since I've given the game away, can you let us know which conspiracy you are involved in? Is it just the one which involves looking for every bit of negative trivia and dumping it into articles on politicians you don't like, or is it the shape-shifting lizard taking-over-the-universe-by-editing-Wikipedia one? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Please stop with the unnecessary comments and unfounded accusations of 'dumping' 'negative trivia' on politicians, something I have not done. There is nothing disrespectful with being the son of a famous academic. I am inclined to hat this comment, given its disruptive and irrelevant nature. 86.154.155.169 (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
If you don't like "unnecessary comments and unfounded accusations" I suggest you refrain from promoting conspiracy theories on this talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Religion = None" vs. "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (atheist)" in infoboxes.

Per WP:BRD and WP:TALKDONTREVERT, This comment concerns this edit and this revert.

(Please note that nobody has a problem with the use of "Atheist" in the article text. This only concerns infoboxes.)

"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby." --Penn Jillette

"Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position." --Bill Maher

There are many reasons for not saying "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (atheist)" in Wikipedia infoboxes. They include:

It implies something that is not true

Saying "Religion = Atheist" in Wikipedia infoboxes implies that atheism is a religion. It is like saying "Hair color = Bald", "TV Channel = Off" or "Type of shoe = Barefoot". "Religion = None (atheist)" is better -- it can be read two different ways, only one of which implies that atheism is a religion -- but "Religion = None" is unambiguous.

It is highly objectionable to many atheists.

Many atheists strongly object to calling atheism a religion,[64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72] and arguments such as "atheism is just another religion: it takes faith to not believe in God" are a standard argument used by religious apologists.[73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82]

It goes against consensus

This was discussed at length at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 142#Changing "Religion = none" to "Religion = Atheist" on BLP infoboxes. Opinions were mixed, but the two positions with the most support were "Religion = None" or removing the Religion entry entirely.
More recently, it was discussed at Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what?, and again the consensus was for "Religion = None".
On article talk pages and counting the multiple "thank you" notifications I have recieved, there are roughly ten editors favoring "Religion = None" for every editor who opposes it. Of course anyone is free to post an WP:RFC on the subject (I suggest posting it at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion) to get an official count.

It is unsourced

If anyone insists on keeping "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (Atheist)" in any Wikipedia infobox, they must first provide a citation to a reliable source that established that the individual is [A] An atheist, and [B] considers atheism to be a religion.

It attempts to shoehorn too much information into a one-word infobox entry

In the article, there is room for nuance and explanation, but in the infobox, we are limited to concise summaries of non-disputed material. Terms such as "atheist", "agnostic", "humanist", "areligious", and "anti-religion" mean different things to different people, but "Religion = None" is perfectly clear to all readers, and they can and should go to the article text to find out which of the subtly different variations of not belonging to a religion applies.

It violates the principle of least astonishment.

Consider what would happen if Lady Gaga decided to list "Banana" as her birth date. We would document that fact in the main article with a citation to a reliable source (along with other sources that disagree and say she was born on March 28, 1986). We would not put "Birth date = Banana" in the infobox, because that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Banana is not a birth date...". Likewise we should not put anything in an infobox that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Atheism is not a religion..."

In many cases, it technically correct, but incomplete to the point of being misleading.

When this came up on Teller (magician), who strongly self-identifies as an atheist, nobody had the slightest problem with saying that Teller is an atheist. It was the claim that atheism is a religion that multiple editors objected to. Penn Jillette wrote "Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby", so we know that Penn objects to having atheism identified as a religion.
In the case of Penn, Teller and many others, they are atheists who reject all theistic religions, but they also reject all non-theistic religions, and a large number of non-religious beliefs. See List of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! episodes for an incomplete list. Atheism just skims the surface of Penn & Teller's unbelief.

In my opinion, "Religion = None" is the best choice for representing the data accurately and without bias. I also have no objection to removing the religion entry entirely. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a centralised discussion on this point at Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what?. In my opinion the clearest way of expressing this in the infobox is by stating "Religion: none (atheist)". Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

"Religion = None (atheist)" or "Religion = Jewish atheist"?

Surely, as "Jewish atheism" is an article on Wikipedia, and as Mr. Miliband refers to himself as such (as stated later on in the article), then shouldn't this be changed? Or is there a specific Wikipedia policy on this which I have not read yet? – Jordan Hooper (talk)(contribs) 20:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no evidence whatsoever that Miliband adheres to any form of atheism specific to people of Jewish descent. Concluding that he does would constitute original research. And incidentally, no form of atheism can be described as a religion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
(from the article)

"Miliband is of Jewish heritage—the first Jewish leader of the Labour PartyJennifer Lipman (26 September 2010). "Ed Miliband is Labour's first Jewish leader". The Jewish Chronicle. Archived from the original on 28 September 2010. Retrieved 20 November 2013. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)Howard Jacobson (5 October 2012). "I'm Jewish. Ed Miliband is Jewish. We're all Jewish. So maybe Britain is One Nation, after all". The Independent. Archived from the original on 8 October 2012. Retrieved 20 November 2013. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)—and describes himself as a Jewish atheist.Steven Swinford (12 April 2014). "Ed Miliband's hope to be 'Britain's first Jewish PM'". The Telegraph. I have a particular faith, I describe myself as a Jewish atheist. I'm Jewish by birth origin and it's part of who I am. I don't believe in God, but I think faith is a really important thing for a lot of people. It provides nourishment, a faith about how you [can] change the world.Bright, Martin (4 November 2010). "Ed Miliband: Hamas, Ken Livingstone and Jewish values". The Jewish Chronicle. London. Archived from the original on 13 November 2010. My Jewish identity was such a substantial part of my upbringing that it informs what I am {{cite news}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 30 June 2009 suggested (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)"

and the source given from the telegraph includes his quotation: "I have a particular faith, I describe myself as a Jewish atheist. " (emphasis added)
I'm pretty sure someone saying that they are a Jewish atheist is sufficient 'evidence' for the case of them being so. It's not trying to claim that atheism is a religion by any means, but Jewish atheism is a separate thing from atheism alone, otherwise there would not be a separate Wikipedia article on the subject. Why is this not mentioned in the infobox? – Jordan Hooper (talk)(contribs) 21:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Or if it would be better, "Religion = None (Jewish atheist)" – Jordan Hooper (talk)(contribs) 21:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
The fact that Wikipedia has an article on 'Jewish atheism' is neither here nor there - we do not cite Wikipedia as a source. As for what Miliband said, he describes himself as a 'Jewish atheist' certainly - but isn't an assertion that he adheres to a specific form of (non)belief known as 'Jewish atheism' - if such a thing actually exists. He is certainly Jewish by descent, and an atheist - but his self-description tells us nothing more than that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Remove the wikilink to "Jewish atheist" in the "personal life" section of the article then. – Jordan Hooper (talk)(contribs) 13:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The religious views are still "none (atheist)". Jewish atheist is not a special type of view; it describes a cultural and/or ethic affinity with Judaism despite being an atheist.Zythe (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I fail to understand this edit because we know that reliable sources support that Miliband is both a Jew and an atheist: "There was no religion at home and Mr Miliband confirmed for the first time that he is an atheist. "Obviously I'm Jewish, it is part of my identity, but not in a religious sense. I don't wish I had had a more religious upbringing but I have Jewish friends who were part of the Jewish community growing up, going to Jewish youth clubs and other things. I think I felt slightly jealous."[83] Bus stop (talk) 13:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Miliband is Jewish. Yes he is an atheist. These are two different things. We don't Refer to the Archbishop of Canterbury as an 'English Anglican' in the infobox for his biography. The infobox section is labelled 'religion', and accordingly should contain information about his faith (or in this case non-faith), and not extraneous detail added solely by people self-evidently obsessed with getting the label 'Jew' into every infobox they can. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion we should simply be reporting what reliable sources say. The London Evening Standard reports that Miliband states that he is Jewish and an atheist. Bus stop (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
As far as Wikipedia is concerned, the appropriate source for matters of faith (or lack of faith) is the person himself - "Obviously I'm Jewish, it is part of my identity, but not in a religious sense". In a 'religious sense' he doesn't identify with the Jewish faith. Though evidently your obsessive-compulsive addiction to tagging people as Jewish whenever possible (which you claimed to have stopped following) won't let little facts like the opinion of the man himself get in your way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I think we should follow sources. Judaism and Christianity do not have to fit into the same mold. The London Evening Standard, being a reliable source, is fully cognizant of this. That which is applicable to Christians may not be applicable to Jews, and that which is applicable to Jews may not be applicable to Christians. An atheist Jew is far more common than you may be aware. Please let reliable sources sort this out for us. And perhaps other editors here will weigh in. I'm really not interested in having this argument with you. I think I am just regurgitating standard Wikipedia policy on adherence to sources. We have a source stating exactly that he is an atheist and a Jew. I find this a non-issue. Is there some reason that we should not pass this information along, in an Infobox, to a reader? Bus stop (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing whatsoever in Wikipedia policy that supports shoehorning ethnicity into a section marked 'religion', as you are fully aware. And cut out the bullshit about this being a 'non-issue' - the archives of this talk page are full of your endless repetitive stonewalling over labels you wish to slap on Miliband, and it is self-evident that you are returning the the same obsessive-compulsive behaviour that nearly led to you being topic-banned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
As an encyclopedia, we pass along reliably-sourced information to a reader. There is no issue over Miliband being both an atheist and a Jew. This is clearly stated by the London Evening Standard. You refer to "shoehorning ethnicity into a section marked religion". Humans are not inanimate objects that have simply been filled with values in a rational way. There is crossover between religion and ethnicity. There is not always a distinct border between religion and ethnicity. These terms are not mutually exclusive. There is often a blurry edge between terms of this sort. Factors pertaining to either of these terms can be a component of the other term. These are attributes of identity that are applicable to an individual subject of a biography if an appropriate level of support is found in reliable sources. Bus stop (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
No. Your bullshit original research is no reason whatsoever to misuse the infobox section for a purpose for what it was not designed, and if it is your intention to return to this tendentious Wikilawyering POV-pushing behaviour, you can expect to be reported to WP:ANI shortly. You promised to stop doing this - you have broken your promise. Evidently your word is worth fuck-all, and you should never have been trusted. Maybe Wikipedia would be better off without you entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

QUOTE: "The preferred phrase would be 'Religion: None'." SOURCE: Closing summary at Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what?. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Is there any source saying Ed Miliband's religion is "None"? Bus stop (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
The cite on "None" in the infobox entitled "Ed Miliband: I don't believe in God" (Daily Telegraph). Rwendland (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Miliband Year of Birth

Got bored and was looking up birth records of famous people and found that Miliband's Year of Birth on wikipedia does not match the one on his birth record. I've checked with multiple birth record lookups. Here is one from Genes Reunited: Miliband Birth Record

I've already tried to change it but it was undone, (probably my fault for not citing). I'm not a massive wikipedia editor but I thought this should be pointed out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haza2169 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because you cited no source, and because every source I have seen states December 1969. As for genesreunited.co.uk, not only would it appear not to meet the Wikipedia reliability requirements as a source (few genealogy websites do - they tend to consist of user-generated content), but it fails to support your claim - it gives no date, only the year and the quarter. Given that it says 1st quarter 1970, and that you agree that he was born in December, it seems likely that the date given is the date of registry rather than of birth. Not that it matters, since we can't cite a source for a date of birth if it doesn't give one. If there are actually "multiple sources" giving the December 1970 date, as you claimed in your edit summary, please provide them - because a simple Google search certainly provides a great number of sources stating 1969. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Ted Milliband

http://www.itv.com/news/meridian/2015-05-05/exclusive-ed-milibands-first-ever-tv-appearance-as-a-fresh-faced-student/ Is it worth noting that he used to go by Ted? 131.111.243.147 (talk) 08:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Trivial so no ----Snowded TALK 08:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Page hacked?

The only thing I see is a red page with Ed Miliband's picture and 'Vote Miliband'? Does anybody knows what's going on? --Wester (talk) 15:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I've found the source. It was this edit by anonymous user 87.100.227.109 that caused all the trouble.--Wester (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately it's already picked up by press: [84].--Wester (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Hopefully they won't have had time to get this one. This is Paul (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2015

this page has been hacked Novitim (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Already done Vandalism has already been fixed, thanks for reporting. Altamel (talk) 19:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Someone elses moves

I removed a detail that is from someone else's bio, as it is It is irrelevant to Ed Miliband [85]. It is distracting in reading (as the text says later on: his father had 'roving' career, that should do it. Correctly, not all subsequenct job changes of another person are mentioned here). However, it was reverted twice by Bus stop. Full sequence, for the es's: 1: [86], rv by BS [87] 2: [88], rv by BS: [89]).

Bus stop motivated the inclusion by explaining that that other person was his father no less, and what had happened to his father. However, I do not dispute those facts. I state that these facts are irrelevant to this bio. How is it noteworthy for Ed's bio that his father was at the LSE (or even that his father was not at LSE any more)? I see no relevant connection. Including an irrelevant fact is confusing too.


Maybe Bus stop is not convinced by this, but others might think about it. I propose removal. -DePiep (talk) 09:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC) -DePiep (talk) 09:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Needs clarification on resignation

A 5 word mention of his resignation and defeat in the GE isn't really that sufficient. I've added some information but I think someone should add information seat losses etc. 86.128.123.174 (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The undoing of Ed Miliband

Quite an interesting piece from The Guardian here that might be worth using in this article. This is Paul (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a good article, but I'm struggling to find notable facts that can be used. Any ideas? SocialDem (talk) 13:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
A few things spring to mind, although without reading through the Wikipedia article again, I don't know if we've used them already. But here goes:
  • There's the disastrous party conference speech in which he forgot to mention the economy.
  • Labour's apparent lack of direction before and during the election campaign.
  • Making reasonably good points about the direction of the coalition that were often never followed up.
  • The so-called Ed Stone.
  • Tory speculation of a Labour-SNP coalition.
  • Forget now, but I think they may also have mentioned a lack of narrative post-2010 that allowed the coalition to blame Labour for creating a world recession.
Possibly not all of this would be relevant here, but I'm happy to read through this again at some point in the next few days and make more suggestions. Cheers, This is Paul (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, some of these are good points and could do with inclusion. Guess I'm reluctant to use too much stuff based on "he said, she said", so I think it's worth looking for supporting sources.
For what it's worth, I'm currently working through this book to flesh out the 2012-2014 years which are a bit bare at the moment. Can hopefully include some of the Wintour article too. SocialDem (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Looks like quite a useful book, and great work so far btw. This is Paul (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Bacon sandwich photograph

Given that there is an Ed Miliband bacon sandwich photograph article, should it not be linked from the Ed Miliband article? (This is not an invitation to discuss whethere there ought to be an article about the photograph.) 71.197.166.72 (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Post-leadership section?

In light of his occasional interventions on inequality and his recent advocacy for the Paris climate change agreement and now plans to change UK legislation as a result, do people think it would be worth starting a new section for his post-leadership? I realise he doesn't have a formal role other than backbencher, but presumably aged 45 a new section will need to be started at some point. SocialDem (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Ed Miliband. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ed Miliband. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Post-leadership

Since my post in December 2015 I reckoned there was enough material to mention his activities as a backbencher, so I've just created a new section. Comments/changes welcome. I've made it a top-level heading only because I can't see another way of doing it -- though that may change should he ever get a new role (he's only 46 after all). SocialDem (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Category:Critics of Islamophobia from this article and removal of category by User: Cpt.a.haddock

This article is in the category "Critics of Islamophobia", but there seems to be no source to this.

There is a discussion about the inclusion of articles that are in this category at category "Critics of Islamophobia".

I am trying to understand if a source is needed to categorize it also for this and all other articles. There are many articles where the article is categorized and it is sourced to a published article.

User:Cpt.a.haddock is removing this category from several pages even though it is sourced to published article. He says it is not enough for categorization. (For example, at Vinay Lal the categorization is sourced to this article: V. Lal: Implications of American Islamophobia, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 50, Issue No. 51, 19 Dec, 2015. But even then, the category was removed by User Cpt.a.Haddock.)

See his contributions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cpt.a.haddock

The question is, is this enough for categorization? If this source is not good enough, I do not understand how this article is categorized in the category without sources. --Sebastianmaali (talk) 16:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Ed Miliband. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ed Miliband. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

"Tom Baldwin (journalist)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tom Baldwin (journalist). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TigraanClick here to contact me 14:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

"Public policy analyst"

An IP editor, most recently at 86.20.153.38 (talk · contribs), is repeatedly trying to amend the opening sentence to describe Miliband as "a politician and public policy analyst". As various users have suggested in their edit summaries, this is not a sensible addition. The main issue is that "public policy analyst" is not a trade or profession: a doctor who worked as a doctor and then became a politician might well be described as a "politician and a doctor", even if they didn't actively practice medicine any more, but "public policy analyst" is not a descriptor that holds any real meaning if one is also an elected politician. Secondly, there is no suggestion that Miliband is, at present, a "public policy analyst" \, or doing the work of one - he is a full-time politician. Thirdly, there are no reliable sources describing Miliband as a public policy analyst, for perhaps obvious reasons (the editor suggested that the article contains content that supports the assertion: the article does not include the word "analyst" anywhere). This text needs to stop being re-added unless and until it's addition can be justified - and the slow-time edit war needs to stop as well. ninety:one 23:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Subarticle for "Labour Party leadership of Ed Miliband"?

Jeremy Corbyn and Keir Starmer both got split articles focusing on their respective tenures as Labour leader. Should Ed Miliband get one too? 2.97.212.181 (talk) 08:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Labour Party leadership of Ed Miliband

Why does a split article for a picture of Ed Miliband eating a bacon sandwich exist, but not one for his Labour Party leadership? As Miliband's successors Jeremy Corbyn and Keir Starmer have them, Miliband should to. 79.66.89.36 (talk) 11:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

A draft has since been created. If an article about Miliband eating a bacon sandwich is considered notable enough for a separate Wikipedia article, Miliband's tenure as leader is clearly notable enough for one as well. --79.66.89.36 (talk) 12:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ed_Miliband/Archive_3&oldid=1244379477"